In Moore v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 18-cv-00634-SI (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019), the District Court for the Northern District of California exercised its discretion and decided that ample medical records would not preclude a party from having to submit to a mental examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.
After violating a restraining order, Sean Moore, the plaintiff, was shot twice by the police after retreating into his home and refusing to speak with them. In the course of litigation, the City and County of San Francisco, the defendants, sought a medical examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The exam was sought given the plaintiff’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and his conduct in his prior deposition. The plaintiff opposed the exam, alleging that it would be superfluous.
Under Rule 35, courts have authority to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination to comply with a discovery request. The party moving for the examination must show that (1) the physical or mental condition of the party is “in controversy” and (2) “good cause” for examination exists. Upon the showing of both of these elements, it still remains within the district court’s “broad discretion” to require an examination.